Data from: Hearing-aid adoption in Northern and Southern Germany

On an international level, estimates of the prevalence of hearing loss are
often based on the criterion of the world health organization (WHO), but
other criteria have also been applied. Both the prevalence of hearing loss
and the number of hearing-aid fittings can be used to estimate the
adoption rate, which is often regarded as being in need of improvement. To
illustrate the effect of the prevalence criteria on the assessments,
epidemiological data for hearing abilities in Oldenburg, Emden, and Aalen
were used. The criteria were either based on the pure-tone audiogram, on
speech recognition in noise, or on the subjective indication of hearing
difficulties. The results showed a strong dependency of the adoption rate
on the prevalence criterion. Criteria based on speech recognition in noise
led to very high prevalence, but low adoption rates. Age-independent
analysis resulted in similar adoption rates of approx. 25% for subjective
hearing difficulties, for the common WHO criterion, and for the
four-frequency-table of Röser. However, age-dependent analysis revealed
large differences between the subjective indication and the criteria based
on pure-tone audiometry. Overall, statements regarding the prevalence of
hearing impairment and rate of hearing-aid adoption should always include
the applicable criterion, and should either be viewed as age-dependent, or
related to a standard population.

在国际范围内，听力损失患病率的估算通常以世界卫生组织（World Health Organization, WHO）的判定标准为依据，但部分研究也采用了其他评估准则。无论是听力损失的患病率还是助听器验配数量，均可用于估算助听器普及率，而该指标通常被认为尚有提升空间。为阐明患病率判定标准对评估结果的影响，本研究采用了奥尔登堡（Oldenburg）、埃姆登（Emden）与阿伦（Aalen）三地的听力功能流行病学数据。本次研究所用的判定标准分别基于纯音听阈测试（pure-tone audiogram）、噪声下言语识别能力，以及受试者主观报告的听力困难情况。结果显示，助听器普及率与患病率判定标准存在极强的相关性：基于噪声下言语识别能力的判定标准会得出较高的患病率，但对应的助听器普及率却偏低。非年龄分层分析结果显示，针对主观听力困难、通用WHO标准以及勒瑟（Röser）四频表的助听器普及率均约为25%，三者结果相近。但年龄分层分析则发现，主观听力困难判定标准与纯音测听判定标准之间存在显著差异。总体而言，任何关于听力损伤患病率与助听器普及率的表述，均需明确其所采用的判定标准，且应注明分析是基于年龄分层，还是针对标准人群的统计结果。